ライフサイエンスコーパス: Vitek

1 om 0% (agar dilution) to 3.7% (MicroScan and Vitek).

2 s ranged from 8.2% (agar dilution) to 18.5% (Vitek).

3 Automated Yeast Biochemical Card (bioMerieux Vitek).

4 ained using standard biochemical testing and VITEK.

5 roScan ESBL plus ESBL confirmation panel and VITEK 1 GNS-120, 98%; and Etest ESBL, 94%.

6 can ESBL plus ESBL confirmation panel, 100%; VITEK 1 GNS-120, 99%; Etest ESBL, 97%; and BD BBL Sensi-

7 detection of PBP 2a with agar dilution, the VITEK-1 and VITEK-2 systems (bioMerieux, St.

8 The oxacillin agar screen test, the VITEK-1 system, the VITEK-2 system, and agar dilution sh

9 liter (74.1%), whereas the Phoenix (76%) and Vitek 2 (20%) systems had a tendency to undercall an MIC

10 Vitek 2 (bioMerieux Inc., Durham, NC) is a widely used c

11 ks, MD), VITEK (bioMerieux, Durham, NC), and VITEK 2 (bioMerieux) by using the manufacturers' protoco

12 nostic Systems) was compared to those of the Vitek 2 (bioMerieux), the MicroScan MICroSTREP plus (Sie

13 BD Phoenix (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD) and Vitek 2 (bioMerieux, Durham, NC) automated susceptibilit

14 Vitek 2 (bioMerieux, Inc., Durham, NC) is a widely used

15 The performance of the automated Vitek 2 (bioMerieux, Inc., Marcy l'Etoile, France) antif

16 he disk diffusion method and validated using VITEK 2 (bioMerieux, Marcy-L'Etoile, France).

17 y the use of the AP instrument and 101 s for Vitek 2 (P<0.001).

18 The performance of the new VITEK 2 Advanced Colorimetry yeast identification (YST)

19 The updated Vitek 2 AF03 IUO yeast susceptibility system is comparab

20 eakpoints (CBPs) of fluconazole for Candida (Vitek 2 AF03 yeast susceptibility test; bioMerieux, Inc.

21 Essential agreements (EAs) between the Vitek 2 and BMD methods for caspofungin and micafungin w

22 EA between the Vitek 2 and BMD methods was 95.6% for posaconazole.

23 The overall categorical agreement between VITEK 2 and BMD was 97.2% at the 24-h BMD time point and

24 The VITEK 2 and Phoenix extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ES

25 ngle twofold dilution of MICs defined by the VITEK 2 and reference method with the clinical isolates

26 ncreased very major error rates to 58.7% for Vitek 2 and Sensititre.

27 agreement (within two dilutions) between the VITEK 2 and the 24- and 48-h BMD MICs was observed.

28 rates were elevated (8 to 32%) for cefepime (VITEK 2 and VITEK) and for aztreonam (all three systems)

29 compared the MIC results obtained using the Vitek 2 AST-GN69 and AST-XN06 cards to those obtained by

30 The performances of Vitek 2 AST-GN69 and AST-XN06 cards were compared to Cli

31 n parallel on Phoenix PMIC/ID-102 panels and Vitek 2 AST-GP66 cards.

32 ystem (AES) was used in conjunction with the VITEK 2 automated antimicrobial susceptibility test syst

33 racies of the MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2 automated susceptibility test systems when five-

34 udy was designed to assess the impact of the VITEK 2 automated system and the Advanced Expert System

35 results generated by disk diffusion and the VITEK 2 automated system with the results of the Clinica

36 major error (VME) (0.05%) observed using the Vitek 2 breakpoints (cefazolin) and 8 VMEs (0.5%) using

37 nce was comparable to that of BMD using both Vitek 2 breakpoints and 2016 CLSI M100S 26th edition bre

38 rical agreement (CA) was assessed using both Vitek 2 breakpoints and 2016 CLSI M100S 26th edition bre

39 jor errors (MEs) (0.4%) were noted using the Vitek 2 breakpoints and 8 (0.5%) using the CLSI breakpoi

40 tegorical agreement was 95.5% (CA) using the Vitek 2 breakpoints and 95.7% using the CLSI breakpoints

41 4.1%, 92.7%, and 95.5%, respectively, by the Vitek 2 breakpoints, and 93.4%, 92.3%, and 95.5%, respec

42 uated using two sets of breakpoints: (i) the Vitek 2 breakpoints, which utilized the 2009 FDA breakpo

43 .8% for the Phoenix panels and 99.7% for the Vitek 2 cards.

44 Vitek 2 cefoxitin testing is not an adequate substitute

45 The new VITEK 2 colorimetric card was compared to the previous f

46 intermediate or resistant by E-test alone or Vitek 2 confirmed by E-test.

47 2 species) that could be identified with the VITEK 2 database, 36 were identified correctly to specie

48 y testing of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae, as Vitek 2 did not provide reliable results.

49 VITEK 2 endpoints were determined spectrophotometrically

50 The VITEK 2 ESBL confirmatory test exhibited 91% sensitivity

51 re the reference methods for the Phoenix and VITEK 2 evaluations.

52 The VITEK 2 expert system was potentially more frustrating b

53 evaluated, including all those available on Vitek 2 for testing staphylococci and enterococci.

54 VITEK 2 generated MIC results for 42 (68.8%) of 61 isola

55 The accurate performance of the Vitek 2 GP67 card for detecting methicillin-resistant co

56 prospectively determined the ability of the Vitek 2 GP67 card to accurately detect methicillin-resis

57 We evaluated the Vitek 2 ID-GNB identification card (bioMerieux, Inc., Du

58 The most useful substrates in the VITEK 2 ID-YST system were TRE (1 and 89%), MDG (1 and 9

59 X, ID 32 C, RapID Yeast Plus, VITEK YBC, and VITEK 2 ID-YST systems.

60 ity and bile solubility tests, and automated Vitek 2 identification.

61 With the increased hands-off approach of the Vitek 2 instrument and accuracies of 93% for the identif

62 nd of the initial 3-h incubation period, the Vitek 2 instrument demonstrated an accuracy of 93.0% for

63 The Vitek 2 instrument incorrectly reported that more than o

64 The VITEK 2 instrument performed well, detecting 52 of 60 (8

65 tible to fluoroquinolones were tested by the VITEK 2 instrument using investigational test cards and

66 acturer's directions and processed them in a Vitek 2 instrument using version VT2-R02.03 software.

67 lity of each isolate was determined with the VITEK 2 instrument, and the results were analyzed with t

68 The VITEK 2 is a new automated instrument for rapid organism

69 Current BD Phoenix and Vitek 2 methodologies were assessed as screens for KPC b

70 Vitek 2 MIC agreement was 30.4%, with a 23.9% very major

71 ithin 2 dilutions) between the reference and Vitek 2 MICs was observed for fluconazole and Candida sp

72 tical-source isolates, mecA PCR, rather than Vitek 2 or cefoxitin disk testing, is required for optim

73 We found that the three tested systems, Vitek 2 oxacillin and cefoxitin testing and cefoxitin di

74 The Vitek 2 oxacillin and cefoxitin tests had very major err

75 he inclusion of cefoxitin in the Phoenix and Vitek 2 panels has optimized the detection of MRSA by bo

76 Overall, the Vitek 2 performance was comparable to that of BMD for te

77 Overall, the Vitek 2 performance was comparable to that of BMD using

78 the exception of detecting ICR in S. aureus, Vitek 2 performed reliably for antimicrobial susceptibil

79 The VITEK 2 provided rapid, reliable susceptibility category

80 The colorimetric YST card used with the VITEK 2 provides a highly automated, objective yeast ide

81 The VITEK 2 results of tests with 10 antimicrobial agents we

82 an turbidity method (61.8%), followed by the Vitek 2 system (54.3%).

83 t identification (YST) card for use with the VITEK 2 system (bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) was com

84 These results indicate that the VITEK 2 system and AES can provide accurate information

85 e overall categorical agreements between the VITEK 2 system and BMD for flucytosine and voriconazole

86 all categorical agreements (CAs) between the Vitek 2 system and BMD were 99.8% for caspofungin, 98.2%

87 ropriate in 12% of episodes according to the Vitek 2 System and in 100% based on E-test.

88 l agreement (within 2 dilutions) between the VITEK 2 system and the 24- and 48-h BMD MICs was observe

89 ccus aureus were collected and tested by the VITEK 2 system for identification and antimicrobial susc

90 The Vitek 2 system identified three isolates with high confi

91 VITEK 2 system MIC endpoints were determined spectrophot

92 The Vitek 2 system most commonly gave an excellent rating to

93 The only major error was attributed to the Vitek 2 system overcalling oxacillin resistance.

94 The VITEK 2 system reliably detected fluconazole resistance

95 The VITEK 2 system reliably detected flucytosine and voricon

96 The Vitek 2 system reliably determined caspofungin and micaf

97 and that some resulted from a failure of the VITEK 2 system to detect certain forms of resistance.

98 instances (9 on the Phoenix system, 7 on the Vitek 2 system), an oxacillin MIC in the susceptible ran

99 Using the Vitek 2 system, we tested a panel of 896 Staphylococcus

100 ug susceptibilities were determined with the Vitek 2 system.

101 ms tested, the Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and Vitek 2 systems tended to categorize VISA strains as sus

102 Scan, Phoenix, Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and Vitek 2 systems) and three reference methods (agar dilut

103 The mean times to a result with the Vitek 2 test were 9.1 h for Candida species and 12.1 h f

104 acillin using disk diffusion, MicroScan, and Vitek 2 testing.

105 We compared MIC results obtained by Vitek 2 to those obtained by the Clinical and Laboratory

106 r [VME] and 29 minor errors [mEs]), that for Vitek 2 was 98.8% (7 VMEs and 28 mEs), and those for Mic

107 e antimicrobial susceptibility determined by VITEK 2 were detected by the AES.

108 rcial antifungal susceptibility test system (VITEK 2 yeast susceptibility test; bioMerieux, Inc., Haz

109 rence Laboratory, using an automated system (Vitek 2) and retrospective testing (Etest and CLSI refer

110 Three systems (MicroScan, VITEK, and VITEK 2) provided no interpretations of nonsusceptible r

111 ty," ranging from 54.1% (Phoenix) and 83.8% (Vitek 2) to 92.8% (WalkAway).

112 82 to 85%/6 to 19% (MicroScan), and 74%/38% (Vitek 2), respectively.

113 that of phenotypic methods (Remel RapID and Vitek 2).

114 BD Phoenix, bioMerieux Vitek 2, and Beckman Coulter MicroScan commercial automa

115 ror rates between broth microdilution (BMD), Vitek 2, and Etest against 48 clinical KPC-producing Kle

116 sk diffusion, Etest, as well as the Phoenix, Vitek 2, and MicroScan automated systems, and compared t

117 The average times to results for Phoenix, Vitek 2, and the manual methods were 12.1 h, 9.8 h, and

118 n this study, we tested the abilities of the Vitek 2, BD Phoenix, and Kirby Bauer disk diffusion test

119 D criteria, we evaluated the performances of Vitek 2, disk diffusion, and a MicroScan panel compared

120 For the 17 drugs tested by both BMD and VITEK 2, essential agreement ranged from 80.9 to 100% an

121 he reference method) for MicroScan, Phoenix, VITEK 2, Etest, and VITEK were 99.0%, 95.8%, 92.0%, 92.0

122 The overall categorical agreement levels for VITEK 2, Etest, Phoenix, disk diffusion, and VITEK were

123 E-test, Vitek 2, MicroScan, agar dilution, and disk diffusion we

124 The categorical agreements (CA) of Phoenix, Vitek 2, MicroScan, and Etest for penicillin were 95.5%,

125 r commercial MIC testing systems (MicroScan, Vitek 2, Phoenix, and Etest) to detect vancomycin MIC va

126 nd Etest tended to be more accurate than the Vitek 2, Phoenix, and MicroScan automated systems; but e

127 245 (94.6%) were definitively identified by VITEK 2, requiring little input from laboratory staff.

128 greement between broth microdilution, Etest, Vitek 2, Sensititre, and MicroScan methods to accurately

129 combination disk method and confirmed using VITEK 2.

130 were observed with the Phoenix than with the Vitek 2.

131 culum purity plates used with the bioMerieux VITEK 2.

132 lates, respectively, with a prototype of the VITEK 2.

133 ting of staphylococci and enterococci by the Vitek 2.

134 97.3% (MicroScan WalkAway; Siemens), 91.9% (Vitek 2; bioMerieux), and 64.9% (Phoenix, BD).

135 rcial antifungal susceptibility test system (VITEK 2; bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, MO) was compared i

136 (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2; two laboratories with each) against six broad-s

137 P<0.001), MicroScan (OR, 12.4; P<0.001), or Vitek-2 (OR, 9.4; P<0.001).

138 n MICs using automated dilution testing with Vitek-2 and E-test were highly discordant.

139 ifications were initially obtained using the Vitek-2 system with the GPI card for Enterococcus and th

140 in agar screen test, the VITEK-1 system, the VITEK-2 system, and agar dilution showed sensitivities o

141 f PBP 2a with agar dilution, the VITEK-1 and VITEK-2 systems (bioMerieux, St.

142 ceae isolates were determined by Etest, BMD, Vitek-2, and MicroScan.

143 ly misidentified as Acinetobacter lwoffii by Vitek-2, the isolate was subsequently identified as W. c

144 rates for staphylococci were the highest for VITEK (35.7%), Etest (40.0%), and disk diffusion (53.3%)

145 and VITEK (85%) and between BBL Crystal and VITEK (83%), the percent agreement for PCR was higher th

146 ation using standard biochemical testing and VITEK (85%) and between BBL Crystal and VITEK (83%), the

147 h microdilution, 100/100; Velogene, 100/100; Vitek, 95/97; oxacillin agar screen, 90/92; disk diffusi

148 and Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card, bioMerieux-Vitek) against an auxinographic and microscopic morpholo

149 to identify due to discrepancies between the Vitek and API 20E identification systems.

150 as Vibrio damsela and Vibrio cholerae by the Vitek and API 20E systems, respectively.

151 2006 and identified as C. parapsilosis using Vitek and conventional methods.

152 levated (8 to 32%) for cefepime (VITEK 2 and VITEK) and for aztreonam (all three systems), leading to

153 rd biochemical testing, the BBL Crystal kit, VITEK, and API Rapid ID 32 Strep.

154 egory) accuracies of the MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2 automated susceptibility test systems

155 Three systems (MicroScan, VITEK, and VITEK 2) provided no interpretations of nonsu

156 ing systems (BD Phoenix, MicroScan WalkAway, Vitek, and Vitek 2; two laboratories with each) against

157 e GNI+ card has been developed by bioMerieux Vitek as an improvement over the GNI card for the identi

158 In the present study, we used the Vitek automated susceptibility system to determine the s

159 The Vitek automated susceptibility testing system with a mod

160 The Vitek automated susceptibility testing system with a mod

161 strains to allow them to be detected by the Vitek automated system.

162 Phoenix (BD Diagnostic Systems, Sparks, MD), VITEK (bioMerieux, Durham, NC), and VITEK 2 (bioMerieux)

163 In conclusion, although Vitek broth can support good enterococcal growth, this m

164 lly so that neither VanB strain grew well in Vitek broth, and growth of V583 was barely detectable af

165 d Vibrio alginolyticus would not grow in the Vitek card.

166 can, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.), and two Vitek cards (GNS-116 containing meropenem and GNS-F7 con

167 The performance of Vitek cards GPS105 with software version VTK-R07.01 for

168 t experiment will include inoculation of the Vitek cards on the ground prior to launch of the space s

169 entional panels, MicroScan rapid panels, and Vitek cards) currently used in many clinical laboratorie

170 he six products, the API 20E and both of the Vitek cards, correctly identified more than 90% of the V

171 uding the Yeast Biochemical Card (bioMerieux Vitek), determination of microscopic morphology on cornm

172 d to be 99.5 and 100%, respectively, for the Vitek ESBl test and 98.1 and 99.4%, respectively, for th

173 A three-phase analysis of the Vitek ESBL test and a double-disk (2 disk) test was perf

174 These data indicate that the Vitek ESBL test is reliable for the detection of ESBLs i

175 somal beta-lactamase similar to an ESBL, the Vitek ESBL test was found to be capable of detecting hyp

176 Across all three phases, the Vitek ESBL test was found to be much easier to perform t

177 assessed, there was only one false positive (Vitek ESBL test).

178 (two minor errors) and 72.2% agreement with Vitek (five minor errors).

179 We evaluated the Vitek GNI+ and Becton Dickinson Crystal E/NF identificat

180 NF, MicroScan Neg ID2 and Rapid Neg ID3, and Vitek GNI+ and ID-GNB.

181 by testing 454 of the same strains with the Vitek GNI+ card revealed no significant difference in th

182 ntification systems (API 20E, API 20 NE, and Vitek GNI+ card).

183 , Etest ESBL (AB BIODISK, Piscataway, N.J.), Vitek GNS-120 (bioMerieux, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.), and BD

184 k Away Neg Combo 15 conventional panels, and Vitek GNS-F7 cards to the accuracy of the results of the

185 were also categorized as resistant with the Vitek GPS 106 card and two isolates were positive by the

186 xacillin MIC was < or =0.25 microg/ml on the Vitek GPS 106 card.

187 In the absence of vancomycin, Vitek GPS broth supported growth comparable to that obta

188 and had MICs of 0.5 and 2 microg/ml with the Vitek GPS card.

189 on of oxacillin and clavulanic acid with the Vitek GPS-SA card, the reference broth microdilution met

190 The sensitivity and specificity of the Vitek GPS105 method were 97.6 and 85.5%, respectively.

191 mated identification system software update (Vitek gram-positive identification card, version R09.1)

192 factors contributing to the inability of the Vitek Gram-Positive Susceptibility system (GPS; bioMerie

193 rep and Rapid ID32 Strep systems (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelton, Mo.) methods.

194 d either with the API 20E system (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.) or by the conventional tube metho

195 tem was compared with the API20C (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.) system, a 24- to 72-h carbohydrat

196 sceptibility test research cards (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.) were designed to include 6 to 11

197 PI 20C AUX Clinical Yeast System (bioMerieux Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.), a 48- to 72-h carbohydrate assim

198 tems, Norcross, Ga.; API 20C Aux; bioMerieux-Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.; and Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card,

199 had no adverse effect on antifungal MICs or Vitek identification results.

200 le correlation was found between mecA PCR or Vitek II and PBP 2a latex agglutination.

201 esistant and 37 oxacillin susceptible by the Vitek II assay compared with 103 positive and 15 negativ

202 to routine susceptibility testing using the Vitek II AST-P620 card.

203 d reactive by both the Quad-Ferm (BioMerieux Vitek Inc.) and the Rapid NH (Innovative Diagnostic Syst

204 and GNS-F7 containing imipenem) (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Durham, N.C.).

205 ve Susceptibility (GPS) 106 Card (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.) and a rapid slide latex agg

206 tive Susceptibility system (GPS; bioMerieux, Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.) to reliably detect vanB-med

207 ork, N.Y.) with the Vitek system (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.), an established automated m

208 ve susceptibility (GPS) 106 card (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood.Mo.) and a rapid slide latex aggl

209 egorize susceptible strains as VISA; and the Vitek Legacy system tended to categorize VISA strains as

210 sceptibility information was obtained from a Vitek Legacy system, and the location and source of each

211 % for all methods except the method with the Vitek Legacy system, for which it was 90.6%.

212 mmercial MIC systems tested, the Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and Vitek 2 systems tended to categorize V

213 tems (Etest, MicroScan, Phoenix, Sensititre, Vitek Legacy, and Vitek 2 systems) and three reference m

214 mpared the cost of performing the bioMerieux Vitek MALDI-TOF MS with conventional microbiological met

215 incubated for 24 or 48 h; and the automated Vitek method with the gram-positive susceptibility Staph

216 One growth failure occurred with the Vitek method.

217 ication) by a variety of commercial methods (Vitek, MicroScan, API, and AuxaColor), DNA sequencing me

218 Vitek MS (bioMerieux, Durham, NC) was used to assign gol

219 sion 3.0) and to bioMerieux for testing with Vitek MS (SARAMIS database version 3.62).

220 no specific bacterial species for which the Vitek MS consistently failed to provide identification.

221 Also, in all but one instance, the Vitek MS correctly differentiated Streptococcus pneumoni

222 Overall, Vitek MS correctly identified more isolates, incorrectly

223 ur study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Vitek MS for mold identification.

224 The Vitek MS identifications were correct for 85% of the iso

225 (66.8%) were correctly identified using the Vitek MS Knowledge Base, version 3.0 database.

226 amine the utility of the Bruker Biotyper and Vitek MS MALDI-TOF MS systems and their in vitro diagnos

227 The accuracy of Vitek MS mass spectrometric identifications was assessed

228 The Bruker Biotyper and Vitek MS matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-tim

229 We determined that the Vitek MS Plus matrix-assisted laser desorption ionizatio

230 per Real Time Classification 3.1 (Biotyper), Vitek MS Plus Saramis Premium (Saramis), and Vitek MS v3

231 For 1,063 of 1,146 isolates (92.8%), the Vitek MS provided a single identification that was accur

232 cation of microorganisms by MALDI-TOF with a Vitek MS research-use-only system (VMS).

233 enter study assessing the performance of the Vitek MS system (bioMerieux) in identifying medically im

234 Mass spectra were acquired using the Vitek MS system and were analyzed using the Vitek MS v2.

235 The findings demonstrate that the Vitek MS system is highly accurate for the identificatio

236 The BMX protocol and Vitek MS system resulted in correct species-level identi

237 Vitek MS system and were analyzed using the Vitek MS v2.0 database.

238 The Vitek MS v2.0 matrix-assisted laser desorption ionizatio

239 ngs from a multicenter study to evaluate the Vitek MS v2.0 system (bioMerieux, Inc.) for the identifi

240 .4%) isolates with one misidentification and Vitek MS v3.0 correctly identified 140 (89.2%) isolates

241 In addition, we show that Vitek MS v3.0 requires modestly fewer repeat analyses th

242 Vitek MS Plus Saramis Premium (Saramis), and Vitek MS v3.0.

243 The level of agreement for Vitek MS was 80% species, 3.5% complex, 6% genus, and 3.

244 ce of the Bruker Biotyper and the bioMerieux Vitek MS with both the SARAMIS v4.09 and Knowledge Base

245 the Bruker MALDI Biotyper and the bioMerieux Vitek MS, respectively).

246 ck of market-dominating commercial products (Vitek or MicroScan) for susceptibility testing of the ne

247 by visual reading of color end points in the Vitek research cards made possible by incorporation of a

248 Vitek results were 4 microg/ml for all strains for which

249 Vitek susceptibilities for V. cholerae showed a good cor

250 11 antimicrobial agents with the bioMerieux Vitek susceptibility test system (Hazelwood, Mo.) and th

251 s Scientific, Inc., New York, N.Y.) with the Vitek system (bioMerieux Vitek, Inc., Hazelwood, Mo.), a

252 The total category error rate with the Vitek system and the recent clinical isolates (11,902 or

253 testing (AST) results were verified with the Vitek system on the same day that they were available.

254 racy of susceptibility test results with the Vitek system was clearly demonstrated in this study.

255 Results obtained with the Vitek system were compared to MICs determined by a stand

256 With the Vitek system, 64 of 66 C. dubliniensis isolates (97.0%)

257 ults for E. cloacae isolates tested with the Vitek system.

258 and 100 (100.0%) were MDG positive with the Vitek system.

259 ratory reproducibility was observed with the Vitek system.

260 tem offers a 57.4% savings per test over the Vitek system.

261 lates of Enterobacter cloacae tested using a Vitek system; for the same species, in contrast, suscept

262 d against imipenem and meropenem, except for Vitek testing (major error rate for imipenem, 20%).

263 ts and/or the API 20C Aux system (bioMerieux Vitek) to identify the same yeast isolates.

264 Vitek version 5.01 and Crystal version 3.0 softwares wer

265 atelia Toxo IgG and Toxo IgM, and bioMerieux Vitek VIDAS Toxo IgG and IgM.

266 EIA, 100 and 84.2%, respectively; BioMerieux Vitek VIDAS Toxo IgM, 100 and 98.6%, respectively; BioWh

267 e very major error rate for enterococci with VITEK was 20.0%.

268 VITEK 2, Etest, Phoenix, disk diffusion, and VITEK were 93.0%, 90.0%, 89.6%, 88.0%, and 85.9%, respec

269 for MicroScan, Phoenix, VITEK 2, Etest, and VITEK were 99.0%, 95.8%, 92.0%, 92.0%, and 85.9%, respec

270 MicroScan), 0.9% (agar dilution), and 2.7% (Vitek), while major error rates ranged from 0% (agar dil

271 While at 24 h the profiles obtained with the VITEK YBC system showed that MDG (10 and 95%), XYL (0 an

272 of C. albicans with both the API 20C AUX and Vitek YBC systems to evaluate the ability of the XYL and

273 the API 20C AUX, ID 32 C, RapID Yeast Plus, VITEK YBC, and VITEK 2 ID-YST systems.

274 correct identifications; P < 0.0001) or the Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card (193 versus 173 correct ide

275 en results obtained with API 20C Aux and the Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card system (P = 0.39).

276 C Aux; bioMerieux-Vitek, Hazelwood, Mo.; and Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card, bioMerieux-Vitek) against

277 tive XYL test with either the API 20C AUX or Vitek yeast identification system to provide a presumpti